Related
We have a desktop client application and recent customer requests indicate that they would like to have some dynamic HTML content served and displayed by the application.
We are considering hosting a simple ASP.NET application in a local process, accessible only from the local machine (similar to the ASP.NET development web server used when debugging from Visual Studio).
How can we run an ASP.NET application locally without IIS? IIS is not an option because most client machines will not have it installed.
Is there a leightweight ASP.NET web server that could run locally similar to the development web server that VS is using?
I have found some information about "Cassini". Is this suitable for production use? Can it handle ASP.NET MVC? Are there any alternatives we should consider?
I have not used it myself, but you can try the mono XPS server.
It is a stand alone webserver.
The easiest way to start XSP is to run it from within the root directory of your application. It will serve requests on port 8080. Place additional assemblies in the bin directory.
Cassini is in fact also a good option - it is the development web server that comes with visual studio (so widely distributed, used and tested) and is also used by the open source ScrewTurnWiki. See wikipedia.
In regards to your "only locally" requirement - a web server will serve any request made to the right port. In order to limit accessibility, you should use a firewall that will block any external requests.
You might consider using WCF to host a service on the local machine that can serve the data without having to host a full blown web server.
If you do this, WCF allows you to expose the service with multiple endpoints and make it available through HTTP, TCP, or Namepipes. Namepipes would restrict traffic to only the local machine.
I have also tried IIS Express. It works great with ASP.NET MVC. Right now it is available only with Web Matrix, but installing web matrix is easy.
Coming back to this question three years later, ServiceStack.NET with self-hosted option seems like a good choice. While it is not ASP.NET MVC directly, it provides a good API and features are on par with ASP.NET MVC/WebAPI (or in some ways better).
I have a requirement to build an application that a company can use to manage an ftp server. The idea is that through the web app, they can create users which will also create an ftp space etc so that the user can then upload documents and files to the company. The requirement is specifically that clients can use an ftp program and the company manages it through a web application.
I know Plesk provides an API which could be used by an asp.net application, as well as being able to work with IIS directly etc
however, can anyone suggest:
- a .net library that makes this straight forward (or just tell me that IIS is the best way to go)
- a package that does this (even if it costs)
- an alternate ftp server (not the IIS one) that may make this easier
- examples of .net code managing the IIS ftp server
- "just use plesk"! but really, plesk has too much in it, really I just want the ftp management part of plesk
assume it would be running on a windows server with complete control...I was just presuming that I'd interact with the IIS ftp server but cannot find any real examples of managing the ftp side of things (mind you, searching FTP IIS and .Net etc gives a real mixture of results)
thanks heaps!
(do you always find stuff after you ask?)...
This looks exactly what I'm after...
http://learn.iis.net/page.aspx/285/provisioning-sample-in-c/#CreateFTP
But I'm still open to what's out there...has anyone implemented code similar to this?
This would be the best place to start with IIS7: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/microsoft.web.administration%28v=VS.90%29.aspx
we've recently started using WinSCP's (winscp.net) scripting/command-line interface (CLI) from Windows Scheduled Tasks calling standard Windows batch files, but i noticed they also have a howto for c#:
C# example link: winscp.net/eng/docs/guide_dotnet#full_c_example
I'm developing a web site in a high-security environment. For example, we use CAC cards to authenticate users over SSL.
The site is a mix of VB.NET and C# on .NET 3.5 with some AJAX. The AJAX parts are now calling web services for things like Cascading Drop Down Lists.
We've been running VS2008 configured on our local PCs to use IIS instead of the default server (Cassini). However, some security policies were rolled out to the desktops over the weekend and, suddenly, we're not allowed to run IIS on our PCs anymore.
I already have some of our IT people trying to appeal for waivers for developers. In the meantime, I need to find a way to keep developing.
If I turn off the SSL requirement to the 'secure' part of the application (locally, my PC only) I can serve up some of the pages (using Cassini) when I hit "F5", but pages with web services just bring up "server application unavailable".
I need to be able to add some more functions into the existing web services, among other things, so the ability to single-step through the code is still a necessity.
I'm sure someone who is limited to using Cassini has found a way to Build/Debug pages in VS2008 when webservices are involved.
Thanks in advance.
EDIT: As it turns out, some links had "HTTPS://" hard-coded in them (I inherited these). Changing the link to "~\folder\page.aspx" allowed Cassini to properly serve things up.
Note that using Cassini is the default for VS2k8, even for Web Services. Try starting a new HelloWorld web service project and confirm if you can debug it.
OK So that worked. Then change the debugging options of your real project back to using Cassini rather than IIS. I wouldn't move the project (although backing it up might not be a bad idea) as you might be able to get IIS working again.
EDIT: So your actual problem wasn't to do with web services, just hard-coded URLs. (We have similar problem where much of the site works where ever the root of the website is, but some places, such as "main menu" links, expect the root to be the root of the webserver.)
You proabbly need to contact your IT department and have them open up something on the network so you can call the services - a port on a firewall, for instance.
I've found that on some occasions I can edit the source while debugging. Are there any other advantages of using the Visual Studio built-in webserver instead of a virtual directory in IIS?
I'm using Windows XP on my development environment, and a local instance of IIS 5. I work on several projects, so I use multiple virtual directories to manage all the different sites.
Are there any disadvantages?
The built-in web server for Visual Studio is called Cassini and here are a few of its limitations...
It can host only one ASP.NET
application per port.
It does not support HTTPS.
It does not support authentication.
It responds only to localhost
requests.
It is slow startup compared to IIS
All the previous responses are great answers - here's one gottcha with Cassini that might require IIS on the destkop.
Cassini runs in the context of the developer, not as the IIS user (IUSR_, IWAM, or in WinXP x64, the w3wp process). This can be a bit painful if you've got a web site that is accessing external files or creating temp files. It is most evident when your developer is running as an Admin of their desktop.
When you move to the server IIS, something that you would have had access to in Cassini doesn't work the same. CACLing with the IIS_WPG usually is all it takes to fix, but if your developer is not thinking about this, they will quickly get quite frustrated with their deploy.
Cassini does not support virtual directories.
It looks like a third option is coming soon:
IIS Express.
Another disadvantage I've run into is on a Forms authenticated website using custom IPrincipal/IIdentity. Cassini will switch the AppDomains without warning (or notice).
Check this blog post for more.The headache on this made me drop Cassini and stick with IIS.
The Visual Studio web server is less forgiving about // in the path.
It will refuse to serve a link like
http://localhost:52632/main//images/logo.jpg where IIS will do.
That's pretty obscure, but it means we have a lot of fixing to do to get rid of all the // occurrences.
The built-in server works well for larger corporations that don't want to give developers any administrator access on their own machines to configure IIS.
There's a bug in the way the built-in server handles HTTPModules - there is a workaround, but I hate having to put in code that'll never be needed in production.
You need to have Visual Studio running to use it (under normal circumstances)
It only responds to localhost, so you can't give the link http://simon-laptop:37473/app1 to a friend to view your site over the network
Big disadvantage: it's harder to get fiddler working, because localhost traffic isn't sent through the proxy.
Using http://ipv4.fiddler:37473 is the best way to get Fiddler working with it.
You cant use virtual directories :(
Cassini also does not support ASP Classic pages. This is only an issue for legacy projects where old ASP Classic pages still exist (like our web application at work).
The built-in server means the developer doesn't have to know how to set up IIS to test their site.
You could argue this is a disadvantage, and that a Windows developer should know at least that much IIS. Or you could argue that a developer who isn't a system administrator shouldn't be messing around with the web server at all.
If you 'web reference' the URL for web services that are on the built-in webserver, the port might change. Unless you have set a "Specific port" mentioned in menu Project → Properties options page.
This is something I've gotten used to now. I always set a specific port. Now when sometimes the webserver crashes (I've had that happen), I simply change the port number, and all is well. I reckon restarting will also fix this.
If you do hobby work at home using XP Home, you can't install IIS locally.
When you use IIS in Vista or Windows 7 with UAC enabled, you must run Visual Studio with administrative rights. If you do this, you can't drag an drop from your shell to Visual Studio (even if you run an instance of explorer.exe as administrator).
For this reason I use Cassini for most projects.
FYI, Windows XP 64-bit comes with IIS 6.
This is an old thread started 2 years ago. I just stumbled upon UtilDev Cassini while googling. Looks promising to me. At least it has the ability to run multiple sites simultaneously. That feature is really useful for me, because I work on 2 different sites and have to continuously switch between them using IIS.
Here's a reason for a third way: although UWS Pro is probably closer to IIS than Cassini (although inspired by Cassini and is from the vendor of the UltiDev Cassini fork), its main purpose is to be redistributable along with ASP.NET applications.
Cassini is meant to be a lightweight test webserver. The idea is that a developer does not need to have IIS installed and configured to test his/her application.
Use IIS if you are familiar with it and you have it set up and your box can handle it. Cassini is not meant to be a replacement.
I often take the best of both worlds and create an application in IIS, and use the built-in web server for more efficient debugging.
The built-in server isn't as configurable, and it runs on an odd port, so if you're counting on specific behavior it can be troublesome.
Install IISAdmin, and you can setup separate sites in IIS 5, instead of using virtual directories.
The built-in webserver is a little less robust than IIS, but requires no setup so it is just a tradeoff.
You may not always want your development projects exposed on your IIS server (even your local IIS server) so the built-in server is good for that.
However, if your application is going to access resources outside of the norm for a web app then you may want to debug frequently in IIS so that your app will run with restricted permissions and you can see where the pain points will be.
One difference I've found is that the development server handles uploading files differently than IIS does. You can't trap the error if the file being uploaded is bigger than your Max_File_Size setting. The page just dies and returns a 500.
Another dis-advantage is that it sends every request through the gloabal asax file which includes all requests for images and stylesheets. This means if you have code in there which does things with the file names, such as a look up, then the auxillary files willget processed too.
Also via IIS, you don't have to worry about automatically remembering and setting a stupid port number in your localhost url. That's something funky directly relied upon with Cassini...big pain in the ass. Who wants to remember some abritrary port number. Just run the damn site in IIS..plain and simple.
We've also seen some issues with Visual Studio built-in server regarding some third-party controls which put their scripts in the \aspnet_client folder.
Since the folder isn't there when you're not running under IIS, the controls didn't work. It seems a lot simpler to always work with IIS and avoid strange problems.
If your project resides in the IIS directory you can still edit code. It just depends if it has been published or not.
You will run into so many issues on the Cassini vs. IIS when you are debugging certain permission based scenarios, like Kerberos and NTLM authentication as well as issues like server compression, etc. All in all, the Cassini is still okay to develop with, but make sure you do extensive testing when publishing to IIS.
Currently our dev team set up all the websites they're working on in IIS on their local machine. We're thinking of switching to using the built in ASP.NET development server instead.
Is this a good idea? What are the pros / cons of using the ASP.NET dev Server? Are there any gotchas we should be aware of?
Thanks.
NB: Running on Win XP / IIS 5 / VS2005
Edit:
Didn't realise it was called Cassini.. More answers for Cassini v IIS here.
There is nothing that the ASP.NET Dev WebService can do that IIS can't (You can set breakpoints etc, just attach the VS debugger to the ASP.NET runtime).
However, the ASP.NET Dev WebService does not represent a true production environment, and as such you can get caught by gotchas that you wouldn't expect when you deploy to production.
Because of that, I mandate that all development is done using IIS on a local machine. It doesn't take much work to configure a site in IIS.
It's a very good idea. Here are some reasons for:
You no longer need admin access to your machine for web development (it can still be helpful).
It's much easier to test a quick change and continue work, and faster iteration cycles are good.
It can simplify setup and deployment of your development environments.
The XP version of IIS has limitation that are not present in the Server version that Cassini side-steps.
The only argument I know against is that there are a couple very rare edge cases where the Cassini built-in server doesn't exactly mimic IIS because you're using odd port numbers. I doubt you'll ever run into them, and using Cassini as the primary dev environment does not preclude developers from also having access to IIS on the machine. In fact, my preferred setup is Cassini first for most small work, then deploy to my local IIS for more in-depth testing before moving code back to the shared source repository.
[Edit]
Forgot about url re-writing. You do need IIS for that. And an example of a limitation of the built-in XP IIS is that you are limited to one site in XP (can have multiple applications, but that's a different thing).
I had to switch (back) to IIS for one project, because I needed to set some virtual directories which is not possible on the ASP.NET Development Web Server.
As I stated here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/103785/what-are-the-disadvantages-of-using-cassini-instead-of-iis your developers need to be aware that Cassini runs as the local user, which is typically an admin account for developers. The development will be able to access any file or resource that their account can, which is quite different from what they will see on an IIS 6 server.
The other thing that's a pretty big gotcha is debugging web services is much easier using IIS and vdirs rather than separate Cassini instances.
I know at one point I had an issue with Authentication not working as expected on Cassini (built in development server)
Also, if you need to test things like ISAPI plugins (a re-writer for example) I'm not sure how that's done on Cassini.
The constantly changing port is also rather disconcerting to me. Also, for each web project in your solution it fires up another instance of a Casini server, and each one takes anywhere from 20 to 50 MB of memory.
I use IIS all the time, it's pretty easy to setup, and you guys are already doing that...
I've used both methods and I prefer having IIS locally vs. using the built-in server. At very least you're more consistent with the final deployment setup.
Also, when using IIS 5.1, be sure to get JetStat IIS Admin, it adds functionality that is disabled out of the box on IIS 5, such as being able to setup multiple sites.
I have run into the following limitations with the asp.net dev server:
does not support virtual dirs. If you need them in your app, IIS seems to be your only choice
Classic asp pages dont run in dev server. So if you have a mixed web app (like I have at my client right now), IIS seems to be the solution
If you need an admin UI to configure settings, IIS works better
Of course IIS requires that you be a local admin.
Another distinction I noticed is that Cassini runs as a 32-bit process and you have no control over it, whereas you can control the application pool of your IIS app to disallow 32-bit (assuming your IIS is running on a 64-bit server). This becomes especially important if your web application is going to call APIs in 64-bit processes such as SharePoint Foundation/Server 2010. When you debug your web app with Cassini as your debug server, you'll get "The Web application at url could not be found. Verify that you have typed the URL correctly" type errors when instantiating objects. If you debug using IIS with the app running in an app pool that runs as 64-bit with an identity that allows access to sharepoint database then you'll be able to debug properly.
In VS12 the development server is way slow, takes a few seconds to download a 2kbyte file. This did not happen in vs10. When you have a bunch of jquery files and css this is a real problem. Also every page requeries all the css/js files. Very very slow regression testing.
The main issue I've run into with the dev server is SerializationExceptions with custom security principals stored on the thread context. Details here.